Originally posted by toreishi
reply to post by RichardPrice
while i do definitely agree with you on all the points you've stated, the fact remains that the F-22 is certified to cruise at 65,000 ft (with the pilot all safe and snug inside). so why did this one pilot black-out and crash, leading to the grounding of the entire fleet of F-22s -- up to and including those which haven't been certified for deployment yet?
Because of a problem with the system in question.
Thats it. Thats the entire reason. No need for conspiracies surrounding it.
The oxygen supply system has a fault in it that can be tripped in certain circumstances. It doesn't get tripped in every circumstance, which is why we have had only one accident attributed to it. Its serious enough to warrant a grounding of the fleet until the problem has been identified, rectified and the fix issued across the fleet.
Thats it. No conspiracy there.
Problems are discovered in aircraft all the time, even in the civilian world - they get investigated and an Air Worthiness Directive is issued by the manufacturer requiring airlines to make changes which rectify issues.
Its no different for the military - problems are found, sometimes after an accident, and fixed.
would it be too far-fetched to say that the F-22 is being tasked with yet another job to perform?
In my opinion - yes. You don't publicly say "the F-22 fleet is grounded" and then fly F-22s all over the place for other reasons, thats the sort of behaviour that creates interest in what you are doing, starts people talking.
There is no reason not to ground the F-22 while this problem is being identified and fixed - its not currently performing any task which cannot be covered by other aircraft. QRA is still largely covered by the F-15 and F-16 Air National Guard units, so the F-22 won't be lost there. The F-22 isn't currently part of any overseas combat rotation, so its not part of any military strategy planning currently in effect.
When you have a $250Million investment (in the airframe and the pilot), and you have the chance to completely remove the risk from that investment, you remove the risk. Its the intelligent thing to do - in this case, the USAF have already lost one airframe and one pilot, they have suffered the financial penalty of losing that airframe (which will never be replaced by the way, the USAF are not buying any more airframes) and they have suffered the political and public relations penalty of losing the pilot, who is someones son, possibly someones husband, possibly someones father and definitely had friends.
No need for conspiracy here - the F-22 has a problem, its being rectified, there is no reason NOT to ground the airframe so they ground it. Risk mitigated.
In the event of the F-22 absolutely being needed to protect the US from attack, they would be reactivated almost overnight (there would be some check flights for pilots who have time expired over the period of the grounding), risk or no risk - but that is the prerogative of a war situation, the risk of the oxygen issue popping up again is mitigated by the need to use the airframe.
But currently the F-22 isn't needed, so why take the risk of another crash?
it has been proven that the F-15, while configured for air-dominance, can perform the ASAT role. but the threat facing US forces today isn't just represented by a couple of satellites in predictable orbits. i cite the Dong Feng 21A and various other missiles (some supersonic) in various stages of development as examples of this. while the fact remains that the F-22 can be configured as a bomb-truck, it would be redundant and complacent to do so, especially when the enemy starts deploying LO platforms like the J-20 as delivery boys. why would you use F-22s to tackle ships loaded with tanks and soldiers when they can be better deployed as snipers against airborne threats and mini-awacs for your groundbusters at the same time? by doing so you'd be depriving your side with one of its most efficienct force multipliers and giving the enemy an easy time to threaten your forces.
But why limit yourself to one role or the other? Thats the entire point of the swing role aircraft entering service - you don't just get one aircraft for one situation, and another aircraft for another situation - you get an aircraft which can be trivially adapted to either situation as required.
Consider this - your F-22 'snipers' have taken out all of the enemies "bomb trucks" and their fighter cover, the enemy air capability is essentially nil as you have complete air superiority. If your F-22s then didn't have bomb carrying capability, they are no longer needed - but you still need aircraft to fulfill the bomb role, which means more aircraft, more expenditure....
So why not load the F-22 up with bombs, and send it on its merry way? Its still got a very decent air to air capability when loaded with the SDB or the JDAM, it can still defend itself or carry out the air dominance role.
Doing it your way just wastes the airframe after a certain point.
